Media Roundup: Give Warren Vetter Jacobson a Pulitzer

Because the corrupt media is so breathtakingly corrupt in its push to reelect a failed president, Big Journalism needs a running live blog. Please help us in our quest to capture the breadth and scope of this corruption by forwarding your tips to jnolte@breitbart.com or Twitter me @NolteNC.

Over at his log Legal insurrection, Professor William A. Jacobson is putting the mainstream media, especially the Boston Globe, to shame by doing to Elizabeth Warren what should be done to every candidate regardless of party: an absolutely relentless vetting.

The Professor’s latest bombshell will probably be the end of Warren’s chances at unseating Scott Brown. It seems impossible to me that even liberal Massachusetts will vote to make a U.S. Senator a woman who practiced law illegally in their state. Besides, they seem to like Brown.

If it wasn’t for Jacobson, we wouldn’t know about this and if it wasn’t for New Media in general, we wouldn’t know Warren had lied about her Cherokee ancestry. This knowledge is as fierce an indictment of the corrupt media as it is of Warren herself.

Jacobson should be rewarded a Pulitzer for his efforts, but that’s not how that award works anymore. Regardless, whatever New Media awards are out there most assuredly should be bestowed upon this dogged investigative reporter who just might have won Republicans control of the U.S. Senate.

How Will a Media That Spent Months Making Romney Look Idiotic Manage Debate Expectations For Obama?

Between now and the debate next Wednesday, the media has a problem on its hands. Managing expectations prior to a presidential debate is a very big deal. If you go in looking weak, you can sometimes win merely by not making a huge mistake.

For the past few months, the ObamaMedia has worked overtime to make Romney look incompetent. This helps Romney going into the debates.

In 2000, the media made the same mistake with George W. Bush.

One wonders if the media will try some sort of trick to build Romney up as a Great Debater even after falling all over themselves to make him look like a moron in contrast to Obama.

Again, The Narrative must remain, Obama can do nothing wrong and Romney can do nothing right. This is why CNN’s Jim Acosta just had to highlight a moment on a rope-line where after a speech, Romney said in response to a supporters comment about the NFL strike, something along the lines of, “I hope they get it resolved.”

Acosta called the a “fumble” because when Romney said that the strike had already been resolved a few hours earlier.

Yeah, what a fumble. You’re one of two guys who will become president in 40 days and you missed “Sports Center.”

The media really is nothing more than human trash.

Gallup’s Silly Defense of Skewed Polls

I respect Gallup and its polling. Right now they show Obama up 50-44, but you have to keep in mind that that’s registered voters. Anyway, today Gallup wrote a defense of those media polls showing Obama creaming Romney due to a turnout advantage that would meet or best Obama’s perfect storm turnout of 2008.

The defense pretty much comes down to this:

So, if one sees a poll saying that Obama is leading Romney by nine points in Florida, then one should ask how likely it is that Obama will exceed his 2008 margin by six points. That is a reasonable discussion. But one need not attempt to say that the nine-point lead in the poll is suspect because there were too many Democrats and not enough Republicans in the sample compared to 2008.

Huh?

Whuh?

Uhm…?

So we can question the outcome of the poll, but we shouldn’t question what creates a questionable outcome?

Absurd.

Florida was a D+3 in 2008. The CBS/NYT Florida poll the media’s been using for the last 48 hours to call the race for Obama is D+9.

The obvious reason the CBS/NYT poll shows Obama doubling his lead over 2008 is the party skew.

Moreover, Gallup and other pollsters weight everything to ensure the most logical outcome. For example, if Gallup wanted to do a poll of 1200 registered voters and the first 1200 calls resulted in only senior citizens answering the phone, Gallup wouldn’t publish that poll under the assumption that America was now only populated with senior citizens. Apparently, Gallup would publish a poll and call it accurate if only Democrats answered the phone.

And yet, the same surveys and exit polls used to allow pollsters to weight in areas of race, age, gender, etc., are the same exit polls and surveys that tell us party affiliation. And yet, pollsters will weight polls based on age, race, etc., but won’t weight based on party ID, regardless of how unrealistic that might come out in the final poll.

This makes no sense to me.

Rasmussen does weigh its polls, giving Democrats a 3 point edge. The thinking behind this is to look for a middle ground somewhere between 2004 and 2008.

That does make sense.

Fact-Checkers State They Will Attack Romney for Telling ‘Literal Truths’ During Debates

Quite likely we will hear Mitt Romney say that gasoline prices have doubled under Obama, which is an example of one of those things that is, yes, literally true if you look at where gas prices were when he took office. They had plummeted due to the worldwide near depression, but the fact is that they have not quite gotten as high for Obama as they were for weeks under Bush in the summer of 2008.

Well, fact-checkers are the ones who called Romney a liar for stating that a president who had never visited Israel never visited Israel. So what else would we expect from these partisan liars?

Just the other day, WaPo’s Cillizza wrote a stinging rebuke of those of us questioning poll after poll after poll coming from the media that says Obama’s going to either match or increase the turnout advantage he enjoyed during the perfect storm of 2008. Of course, the media refuses to report the polls in that fashion. Instead, the media screams that Romney’s losing and losing big without mentioning that in order for that to be true, Obama will have to win a turnout advantage that matches or beats his 2008 showing.

Let’s start with 2008, which was one of the best Democratic years in modern presidential history. Not only did then-candidate Obama galvanize a national movement behind his campaign, he also benefited from the fact that opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) could never get out from under George W. Bush’s shadow or convince the American public that he was well-versed on the economy.

Add to those political environmental factors the fact that Obama raised and spent upwards of $750 million while McCain accepted public financing that limited his spending to $84 million — meaning that Democrats outspent Republicans by as much as 10-1 in some swing states — and it’s clear that Obama hit something close to a Democratic high-water mark in 2008.

But the polls Cillizzaso vigorously defended just a couple of days ago are not only telling us that Obama will match this high water mark– many of the polls Cillizza defended claim he will beat it.

Apparently, when you’re nestled in the warm bosom of the MSM, you really can have it both ways.

Despite a drumbeat from the right and even independent fact-checkers that President Barack Obama has been unwilling to label as terrorism the attack on a United States diplomatic mission in Libya, the president indicated just a day after the killing of the American ambassador there that the assault was part of a series of “acts of terror” the U.S. has faced.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on Sept. 12. “Today, we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

Where to begin?

But this is what “journalism” has become in order to protect Obama. You would think the media would use the president’s use of the word “terror” as proof that his Administration knew early on this was a terror attack but still spent the next 10 days shamelessly lying about it. Good heavens, just a few days after Obama used the word “terror” he sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sundays shows to tell the media and the American people this was not a terror attack.

But no, Politico and Gerstein use Obama’s single use of this word as a means to bail Obama out of his cover up and lies not as proof he covered up and lied.

A four year collapse in durable goods orders and our economy slowing worse than we thought and for the second straight quarter hardly rates a mention — if it does at all.

You can also go back over those links and see how high of a priority our corrupt media is giving to Obama’s Libya cover up.

It’s really up to Romney to grab these openings. The media certainly isn’t going to do it for him.

Polls ObamaMedia Will Ignore or Ridicule: Romney Climbing Back In Swing States

According to Rasmussen’s poll of swing states, over the last few days Romney has climbed from a three point deficit to dead even with the president, 46% each.

Nationally, Rasmussen still shows the race all tied up at 46%.

Why the discrepancy between Rasmussen and other pollsters? Rasmussen only gives Democrats a D+2 advantage. Unlike other pollsters, Rasmussen is not reporting that Obama will equal or best the record turnout advantage he enjoyed during the perfect storm of ’08.

We’re 23 minutes into the show hosted by NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, and he’s not only failed to mention the truly awful economic news released this morning, but it took somewhere around 7 minutes for him to cover Libya at all. During a quick segment, Todd described Republican efforts to dig into the White House’s lies surrounding the Libya attack as “desperate.”

Obviously aware of the criticism he’s faced in becoming a right-wing parrot for the media’s relentless anti-Romney narrative (and on his own show) — this morning Scarborough is now saying, “Romney staffers are telling me…” before feeding the anti-Romney narrative. Or he’s saying, “Off-camera conservatives tell me…”

So you can now add “coward” to that growing list of sins Scarborough commits to curry favor with Mark Halperin’s “Gang of 500.”

You would think a conservative would use the gift of his own show to pour some sunlight on the White House’s growing coverup of Libya. But not Scarborough. Nope. Might cost him another “Vanity Fair” cover.

MSM Tipping Point On Obama in the Middle East? — Sure, After the Election

Walter Russell Mead asks in a lengthy piece today if the media is at a tipping point with Obama on the Middle East:

While the MSM is still not interested in hammering home the picture of an administration reeling from one failed policy and faint hope to the next as it drifts inexorably toward a war with Iran it seems unwilling to fight and powerless to avert, the mainstream narrative has shifted decisively away from the old picture of cool-headed competence restoring order and promoting freedom and building peace. …

Right up until September 11, 2012, President Obama benefited hugely from a largely friendly press that rarely asked the toughest questions about his Middle East policy. In a second term he will face a much more skeptical MSM

And that’s a fair question: Will Obama be held accountable in a second term? Because the media sure isn’t going to risk his reelection chances by immediately demanding answers before the election about the White House Libya cover up.

Should Obama win a second term, it’s likely the media will immediately get tough on him because he will safely be reelected and have nothing to lose. The media will also want to attempt to revive its credibility — something we can’t allow it to do.

Last night on “Special Report with Brett Baier,” the “Weekly Standard’s” Steve Hayes said of the Libya cover up and lies coming out of the White House, “This is a scandal of the first order and the media won’t talk about it.”

Nope.

That’s because the media was in on it and a part of it. The week-long attacks on Romney for supposedly jumping the gun in criticizing the White House were all part of the cover up — a way to distract from the security failures that left our consulate, ambassador, and three other Americans fatally vulnerable.